Good? Probably not, useful, not really but that is a policy thingee.
Thanks,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:32 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be
signed?
With h=;, you don't need to sign the header. And with l=0, you don't
need the body either. But I'm not convinced that either one would be a
good thing to do.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
With no headers at all being signed, a signature should still be
either
valid or invalid and therefore still useful. Don't NEED headers for
base.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html